IN DECEMBER 1994 I wrote the first of what would become a yearly series of columns on the subject of liberal hate speech. That was the year Republicans swept the midterm elections to win control of Congress, and ideological passions were running high. I had noticed that when a prominent Republican or conservative said something offensive about liberals, it typically set off a storm of media condemnation, while an anti-conservative smear voiced by a liberal or a Democrat rarely drew any protest. There was no end of sour commentary, for example, when Newt Gingrich recommended that Clinton Democrats be portrayed as "the enemy of normal Americans." It was an outrageous remark, and Gingrich deserved the drubbing he received.

But when Jesse Jackson explicitly likened the proposals of the new majority to Nazism and apartheid -- "If this were Germany, we would call it fascism. If this were South Africa, we would call it racism" -- there wasn't even a ripple of disapproval. Julianne Malveaux, a radio host and USA Today columnist, caught no flak when she prayed aloud for the death of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. "I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease," she snarled on PBS.

What was true in 1994 remains largely true today. MSNBC fired right-wing talk host Michael Savage in July, and rightly so, when he told a gay caller to "get AIDS and die, you pig." The liberal Nina Totenberg, on the other hand, suffered no ill effects for saying, during the flap over General Jerry Boykin's views of Islam and the war on terrorism, "I hope he's not long for this world." When the startled host asked if she were "putting a hit out on this guy," Totenberg backtracked and said she only wanted to see him expire "in his job."

But this isn't the first time the NPR diva has publicly wished death on a conservative. "I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's mind," she said of Senator Jesse Helms in 1995, "because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will."

Such venom should be beyond the pale. But too many liberals would still rather dismiss conservative ideas with an ugly slur than actually grapple with them on the merits. Debating the pros and cons of racial preferences or US foreign policy can be difficult; much easier to simply hiss "Racist!" or "Nazi!" or some equally poisonous insult.

"What you have now" -- this is left-wing activist and actress Janeane Garofalo, analyzing the Republican Party during an appearance at the 92d Street Y in New York this year -- "is people that are closet racists, misogynists, homophobes, and people who love . . . the politics of exclusion identifying as conservative." That was apparently enough to win her a guest-host slot on CNN's "Crossfire," where she offered this thoughtful critique of the Patriot Act: "It is in fact a conspiracy of the 43d Reich."

Ah, yes, the reductio ad Hitlerum. Why meet a conservative with facts or logic when you can simply tar him with the Nazi brush? Thus we had Nancy Giles on the "CBS Sunday Morning show" sourly tying Rush Limbaugh's "edgy" radio manner to you-know-who's. "Hitler would have killed in talk radio," Giles declared. "He was edgy, too." Ellen Gray of the Philadelphia Daily News struck a similar note in commenting on "The Reagans," the canceled miniseries. "If Hitler had more friends," she told The Washington Post, "CBS wouldn't have aired [its Hitler miniseries] either."

Of course no one came in for more Hitler comparisons this year than George W. Bush. Third Reich references were practically a staple of antiwar rhetoric.

The president "is not the orator that Hitler was," acknowledges leftist commentator Dave Lindorff at Counterpunch.org. "But comparisons of the Bush administration's fearmongering tactics to those practiced so successfully and with such terrible results by Hitler and Goebbels . . . are not at all out of line."

Such repugnant comparisons are in fact wildly out of line. But so long as the double standard persists, liberals will continue to make them with impunity.

Of course this complaint can be taken too far. Ed Gillespie, the Republican Party's chairman, has been accusing Democrats of engaging in "political hate speech" when they call Bush a "liar" or a "miserable failure." But there is a world of difference between labeling someone a failure and labeling him Hitler. My objection has never been to political elbow-throwing. What I have tried to argue is that certain kinds of insult -- those that fantasize about people's deaths, or slime them as racists or fascists or terrorists -- do such violence to our public discourse that they should simply be shunned.

Ten years ago almost no one was calling attention to this liberal slander problem; now magazine articles and even books are being written about it. Progress of a sort, I guess. There's room for a lot more.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.

If you enjoyed reading about "Hate speech of the left" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

Mike Irwin

December 28, 2003, 07:05 PM

But it's not hate speech if it comes from the Left.

That's why Jesse Jackson can talk about Hymietown all he wants, but everyone knows it was just a slip and he meant to say New York.

That's also why Robert Byrd, once a member of the KKK, can keep his job in the Senate without so much as a whimper, but a Republican (name escapes me at the moment) obliquely praises Strom Thurmond's 1948 Presidential bid and is widely condemned as a racist hate mongerer.

There's no double standard in this country. None at all.

MarkDido

December 28, 2003, 08:28 PM

Trent Lott, and it cost him the position of Senate Majority Leader....

ravinraven

December 29, 2003, 05:17 AM

Liberals are constantly pitching to the low side of the IQ curve. That's where their audience is. Their targets cannot follow a logical discussion of any sort beyond why the beer should or should not be iced down.

Liberal media people have no experience in debate because they always dismiss solid logic as "nazi," "racist," etc. Their target audience thinks it has heard reasoned debate and couldn't follow an informed conservative reply anyway.

Now someone will point out that there are high IQ people out there spouting liberal ideas. That's right. They are either part of the "pitch to the low-siders" team or have never thought any political idea through for the simple reason that they have no interest. They just follow the noise and guess where most of the noise comes from. Conservatives appeal to the strengths of human character. Liberals pander to the weakness of human character. Therefore noise.

Half the people are born on the low side of the IQ curve. Millions more migrate there after years of indoctrination by government schools followed by years of hum-drum, no-mental-challenge jobs.

High IQ liberals are far enough up the curve to be beyond thinking and into schemeing. They realize that by forming the less well endowed folks into a bloc they can wield power and turn this county into a true haven for Nazism. Liberals always accuse conservatives of what Liberals are--Nazis. No they don't murder throngs of people--yet--but the mentality is there and revving its engines. Why else do they engage in death wishes in their hate speech?

Bush and the world terror network has awakened a lot of people and derailed the Liberal's nearly flawless leading of this nation into a police state. Why else do you think Liberals are anti-gun? It'll take a while after the terror thing is put out of existence before the liberals can get the rails greased again. But they'll do it. Liberty always gives way to tyranny which is the natural form of gov't. I don't believe the slide into tyranny can be stopped from inside the sliding society. Outside force--who?--or revolution must be exercised in order to restore liberty, methinks.

Enjoy the ride.

ravinraven

HankB

December 29, 2003, 04:07 PM

Liberals are constantly pitching to the low side of the IQ curve. You mean like the people in Florida who couldn't figure out the butterfly ballots - unlike most of the children in 3rd and 4th grade test classrooms who had no difficulty with same? :rolleyes:

w4rma

December 29, 2003, 04:15 PM

You mean like the people in Florida who couldn't figure out the butterfly ballots …http://www.dccofc.org/photos/ballots/Virtualballot.jpg (http://www.dccofc.org/voting/Ballots.htm)

Mike Irwin

December 29, 2003, 04:37 PM

I was especially fond of the butterfly ballot issue, and the left's attempt to paint it as the right's attempt to deny the people the vote...

Especially given that the area in which it was used is heavily Democrat, and the elections board was controlled by Democrats, who approved its use.

w4rma

December 29, 2003, 04:45 PM

…
A confusing ballot created by Theresa LePore, a former Reflublican- then Independent- turned Democrat (to ensure she'd be elected to the Supervisor's position in a largely Democratic county), caused folks to either vote for the wrong person or punch two names (overvote). Even Bat Pukehanon admits that there is no way he should have received those 3,000 votes in a mainly Jewish Palm Beach county.
…
http://www.americaheldhostile.com/selection.shtml

…
January 30, 2002
…
LePore has since changed her voter registration from Democrat to independent.
…
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnmccaslin/jm20020130.shtml

Sean Smith

December 29, 2003, 04:51 PM

A confusing ballot created by Theresa LePore, a former Reflublican- then Independent- turned Democrat (to ensure she'd be elected to the Supervisor's position in a largely Democratic county), caused folks to either vote for the wrong person or punch two names (overvote). Even Bat Pukehanon admits that there is no way he should have received those 3,000 votes in a mainly Jewish Palm Beach county.

:rolleyes:

Incidentally, your picture shows a perfectly comprehensible ballot... for someone smarter than your typical igneous rock. Not that I expect someone raving about "Reflublican" conspiracy theories like in your post above to be able to poke holes in paper. :neener:

Malone LaVeigh

December 29, 2003, 04:52 PM

Liberals are constantly pitching to the low side of the IQ curve.You obviously haven't ever listened to Savage, Limbaugh, or any of the rest of the army of right-wing commentators on radio and TV.

w4rma

December 29, 2003, 05:00 PM

All they needed to do was to trick a few hundred folks in one state to get it to the U.S. Supreme Court. Remember, Al Gore won the popular vote, nationwide, by over half a million votes.

BenW

December 29, 2003, 05:00 PM

Incidentally, your picture shows a perfectly comprehensible ballot..
Hey, that's what I was going to say! You literally have to be a moron not to understand that ballot. A picture is worth a thousand words, thanks for providing it w4rma. :D

Didn't I read that a bunch of third graders passed the use of that ballot with flying colors??

Anyway, the election is over. The best man may not have won, but Gore LOST.

DaveB

December 29, 2003, 05:05 PM

Well, boys, the entire ballot design question is a nice diversion,

but the real issue is the removal of thousands of (mostly minority, so mostly Democratic) voters from the rolls by misusing a database.

All of the BS about chads, recounts, and such is fun, but meaningless.

Gore lost because of a corrupt Florida government and a bought and paid for Supreme Court,

and a gutless national Democratic organization,

and Gore's unwillingness to risk civil war.

db

Sean Smith

December 29, 2003, 05:07 PM

Remember, Al Gore won the popular vote, nationwide, by over half a million votes.

Strong evidence that you... flunked civics class. HINT: popular votes have never decided presidential elections in the United States. But hey, why stop being disingenuous now? ;)

Well, boys, the entire ballot design question is a nice diversion,

I agree.. insofar as it is a "diversion" created by the Democrats from the fact that Gore lost.

but the real issue is the removal of thousands of (mostly minority, so mostly Democratic) voters from the rolls by misusing a database.

All of the BS about chads, recounts, and such is fun, but meaningless.

Gore lost because of a corrupt Florida government and a bought and paid for Supreme Court,

and a gutless national Democratic organization,

and Gore's unwillingness to risk civil war

Oy vey. :rolleyes:

Wildalaska

December 29, 2003, 05:09 PM

You obviously haven't ever listened to Savage, Limbaugh, or any of the rest of the army of right-wing commentators on radio and TV.

:D :D

Bravo!

WildlethewhoiswithoutsincastthefirststoneAlaska

DaveB

December 29, 2003, 05:11 PM

Hey, I think the real issue is sugarplum fairies! I think that theory has as much basis in real life as what you have described, anyway.

Thinking something doesn't make it fact - unless, of course, you're a Konservative.

Do you want a link or not?

db

Mike Irwin

December 29, 2003, 05:14 PM

Unless Florida is completely at odds with other areas of the country, one person does not create the ballot and that's it.

I know for a fact that the Florida butterfly ballot was passed before the other members of the board of elections, who approved it.

It also, I believe, passed before the county supervisors, who didn't say one word against it.

And if I'm not mistaken, it was mailed to every registered voter in the county weeks BEFORE the election, and no one said a single word against it.

Sorry, but that dog doesn't hunt, as the saying goes.

Mike Irwin

December 29, 2003, 05:16 PM

"Well, boys, the entire ballot design question is a nice diversion,

but the real issue is the removal of thousands of (mostly minority, so mostly Democratic) voters from the rolls by misusing a database.

All of the BS about chads, recounts, and such is fun, but meaningless.

Gore lost because of a corrupt Florida government and a bought and paid for Supreme Court,

and a gutless national Democratic organization,

and Gore's unwillingness to risk civil war."

And, again, given that Democrats were in charge of the voter roles, who takes the blame for losing the election?

Sean Smith

December 29, 2003, 05:18 PM

Do you want a link or not?

Sure, go ahead. I'm sure it will be completely unbiased and not connected to the mewling hard-left lunatic fringe. :D

Thinking something doesn't make it fact - unless, of course, you're a Republikan.

Well, your spelling isn't so hot, but in any case I'm not a Republican. I just find your conspiracy theory extremely silly and not supported by any credible evidence this side of Democratic Underground.

DaveB

December 29, 2003, 05:23 PM

http://www.gregpalast.com/bestdemocracymoneycanbuychapter1.pdf

You might want to defer your name-calling, at least until you've read the chapter.

db

Quartus

December 29, 2003, 05:24 PM

Trent Lott, and it cost him the position of Senate Majority Leader....

No loss, not that his successor is any better. Remember, they were both Democrats that changed sides. Uh, they DID change sides when they changed parties, didn't they?

Sean Smith

December 29, 2003, 05:26 PM

You might want to defer your name-calling, at least until you've read the chapter.

Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy,” a book Michael Moore has called “courageous reporting.”

That kind of says it all, doesn't it? Michael Moore? As in, "Bowling for Columbine"? Thanks for proving my point for me. :D

DaveB

December 29, 2003, 05:28 PM

That kind of says it all, doesn't it? Thanks.

If that's your idea of considered thought, I wish you luck in your chosen career.

Are you going to read it or not?

db

Sean Smith

December 29, 2003, 05:38 PM

A representative quote:

But simply smothering the news wasn’t good enough for the New York Times , CNN and the other keepers of the New Information Order.

I see, the (left-leaning) New York Times was part of a massive conspiracy to protect a (Republican's) supposed theft of the election? Do tell... terribly persuasive... no, really... ;)

DaveB

December 29, 2003, 05:41 PM

So, Sean, your rebuttal is more name-calling. Impressive.

db

Malone LaVeigh

December 29, 2003, 05:54 PM

And, again, given that Democrats were in charge of the voter roles, who takes the blame for losing the election?Repugs were in charge of the statewide voter roles. Kathleen Harris, to be precise, Jeb Bush apparitchik, and current congressperson.

w4rma

December 29, 2003, 05:56 PM

but the real issue is the removal of thousands of (mostly minority, so mostly Democratic) voters from the rolls by misusing a database.A blacklist burning for Bush
The more you look the more disbarred and 'disappeared' Gore voters you find. You'd almost think it was deliberate

Gregory Palast
Sunday December 10, 2000
The Observer

Hey, Al, take a look at this. Every time I cut open another alligator, I find the bones of more Gore voters. This week, I was hacking my way through the Florida swampland known as the Office of Secretary of State Katherine Harris and found a couple thousand more names of voters electronically 'disappeared' from the vote rolls. About half of those named are African-Americans. They had the right to vote, but they never made it to the balloting booths.

When we left off our Florida story two weeks ago, The Observer discovered that Harris's office had ordered the elimination of 8,000 Florida voters on the grounds that they had committed felonies in other states. None had. Harris bought the bum list from a company called ChoicePoint, a firm whose Atlanta executive suite and boardroom are filled with Republican funders. ChoicePoint, we have learned, picked up the list of faux felons from state officials in - ahem - Texas. In fact, it was a roster of people who, like their Governor, George W, had committed nothing more than misdemeanours.

For Harris, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his brother, the Texas blacklist was a mistake made in Heaven. Most of those targeted to have their names 'scrubbed' from the voter roles were African-Americans, Hispanics and poor white folk, likely voters for Vice-President Gore. We don't know how many voters lost their citizenship rights before the error was discovered by a few sceptical county officials, before ChoicePoint, which has gamely 'fessed-up to the Texas-sized error, produced a new list of 58,000 felons. In May, Harris sent on the new, improved scrub sheets to the county election boards. Maybe it's my bad attitude, but I thought it worthwhile to check out the new list. Sleuthing around county offices with a team of researchers from internet newspaper Salon.com, we discovered that the 'correct' list wasn't so correct.

One elections supervisor, Linda Howell of Madison County, was so upset by the errors that she refused to use the Harris/ChoicePoint list. How could she be so sure the new list identified innocent people as felons? Because her own name was on it, 'and I assure you, I am not a felon'.

Our 10-county review suggests a minimum 15 per cent misidentification rate. That makes another 7,000 innocent people accused of crimes and stripped of their citizenship rights in the run-up to the presidential race. And not just any 7,000 people. Hillsborough (Tampa) county statisticians found that 54 per cent of the names on the scrub list belonged to African-Americans, who voted 93 per cent for Gore.

Now our team, diving deeper into the swamps, has discovered yet a third group whose voting rights were stripped. The ChoicePoint-generated list includes 1,704 names of people who, earlier in their lives, were convicted of felonies in Illinois and Ohio. Like most American states, these two restore citizenship rights to people who have served their time in prison and then remained on the good side of the law.

Florida strips those convicted in its own courts of voting rights for life. But Harris's office concedes, and county officials concur, that the state of Florida has no right to impose this penalty on people who have moved in from these other states. (Only 13 states, most in the Old Confederacy, bar reformed criminals from voting.)

Going deeper into the Harris lists, we find hundreds more convicts from the 35 other states which restored their rights at the end of sentences served. If they have the right to vote, why were these citizens barred from the polls? Harris didn't return my calls. But Alan Dershowitz did. The Harvard law professor, a renowned authority on legal process, said: 'What's emerging is a pattern of reducing the total number of voters in Florida, which they know will reduce the Democratic vote.'

How could Florida's Republican rulers know how these people would vote? I put the question to David Bositis, America's top expert on voting demographics. Once he stopped laughing, he said the way Florida used the lists from a private firm was, 'an obvious technique to discriminate against black voters'. In a darker mood, Bositis, of Washington's Center for Political and Economic Studies, said the sad truth of American justice is that 46 per cent of those convicted of felony are African-American. In Florida, a record number of black folk, over 80 per cent of those registered to vote, packed the polling booths on November 7. Behind the curtains, nine out of 10 black people voted Gore.

Mark Mauer of the Sentencing Project, Washington, pointed out that the 'white' half of the purge list would be peopled overwhelmingly by the poor, also solid Democratic voters.

Add it up. The dead-wrong Texas list, the uncorrected 'corrected' list, plus the out-of-state ex-con list. By golly, it's enough to swing a presidential election. I bet the busy Harris, simultaneously in charge of both Florida's voter rolls and George Bush's presidential campaign, never thought of that.

But enough is never enough, it seems. We have discovered a fourth group of Gore voters also barred from the polls.

It was Thursday, 2am. On the other end of the line, heavy breathing, then a torrent too fast for me to catch it all. 'Vile... lying... inaccurate... pack of nonsense... riddled with errors'... click! This was not a ChoicePoint whistleblower telling me about the company's notorious list. It was ChoicePoint's own media communications representative, Marty Fagan, communicating with me about my, 'sleazy disgusting journalism' in reporting on it.

I was curious about this company that appears - although never say never in this game - to have chosen the next President for America's voters. Its board dazzles with Republican stars, including billionaire Ken Langone and Home Depot tycoon Bernard Marcus, big Republican funders.

Florida is the only state to hire an outside firm to suggest who should lose citizenship rights. That may change. 'Given a new President, and what we accomplished in Florida, we expect to roll across the nation,' ChoicePoint told me ominously.

They have quite a pedigree for this solemn task. The company's Florida subsidiary, Database Technologies (now DBT Online), was founded by one Hank Asher. When US law enforcement agencies alleged that he may have been associated with Bahamian drug dealers - although no charges were brought - the company lost its data management contract with the FBI. Hank and his friends left last year and so, in Florida's eyes, the past is forgiven.

Thursday, 3am. (I should say both calls were at my request). A new, gentler voice giving me ChoicePoint's upbeat spin. 'You say we got over 15 per cent wrong - we like to look at that as up to 85 per cent right!' That's 7,000 votes-plus - the bulk Democrats, not to mention the thousands on the Texas list. Gore may lose by 500 votes.

I contacted San Francisco-based expert Mark Swedlund. 'It's just fundamental industry practice that you don't roll out the list statewide until you have tested it and tested it again,' he said. 'Dershowitz is right: they had to know that this jeopardised thousands of people's registrations. And they would also know the [racial] profile of those voters.'

'They' is Florida state, not ChoicePoint. Let's not get confused where the blame lies. Harris's crew lit this database fuse, then acted surprised when it blew up. Swedlund says ChoicePoint had a professional responsibility to tell the state to test the list; ChoicePoint says the state should not have used its 'raw' data.

Until Florida privatised its Big Brother powers, laws kept the process out in the open. This year, when one county asked to see ChoicePoint's formulas and back-up for blacklisting voters, they refused - these were commercial secrets. So we'll never know how America's president was chosen.

ChoicePoint complains that I said Harris signed their contract. It was a Beth Emory. I'm still more than 85 per cent accurate.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,409137,00.html

of baseless attacks on our previous felon-in-chief and his lovely wife.

C'mon, guys, which of the countless accusations, allegations, smears, slanders, and outright lies turned out to be true?

db

ElToro

December 29, 2003, 06:23 PM

good thing i just adjusted my tinfoil hat...

you all do know that long after G.W. was sworn in, many journalistic institutions (newspapers) had painfully scrutinized the election results and using even more liberal rules than gores team wanted and after MANY recounts. the results always ended up the same.. gore lost.. sometimes by only a few votes statewide, but still lost.

big deal you say ? well we'd be halfway through the gore administration today if he had jsut managed to win his HOME state.

This rattle is brought to us over and over by the same people that cant count.... like the fact that our "go it alone" coalition in Iraq is actually some 60+ countries signed on... minus france, germany and russia who illegally sold stuff to saddam but we wont mention that.
plus the 30+ countries with troops on the ground.

back to original topic.. i'm surprised the Boston Globe would print such a piece. and it sure does seem there is quite the double standard. libs vs. cons. regarding off color comments.

DaveB

December 29, 2003, 06:28 PM

you all do know that long after G.W. was sworn in, many journalistic institutions (newspapers) had painfully scrutinized the election results and using even more liberal rules than gores team wanted and after MANY recounts. the results always ended up the same.. gore lost.. sometimes by only a few votes statewide, but still lost.

You don't need a tinfoil hat. You need a basic reading comprehension course.

Try your local community college.

also:

like the fact that our "go it alone" coalition in Iraq is actually some 60+ countries signed on

How many troops did those 60 (+) countries send to Iraq?

db

ElToro

December 29, 2003, 06:36 PM

why ignore the recounts ? you're just like the rest of the haters profiled in the editorial (remember, the original topic of this thread?) how come Gore couldn't win his home state ? nice pejorative about my education level, pal. typical of your ilk as described in this Boston Globe editorial.

dude... read my post 60+ countries in the coalition, 30+ with troops. yes some only sent small contingents as opposed to the many thousands we have. but that is not the point. you're kind say we're there alone.

hmmm Colorado... wasnt GunKid from Colorado ? see ya troll

w4rma

December 29, 2003, 06:41 PM

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - George W. Bush (18-Dec-2002)
http://www.atl-imc.org/audio/Atl-IMC/2003/SOA_2003/SOAplaylists/Bushquotes/bush-dictator.mpg

Malone LaVeigh

December 29, 2003, 06:53 PM

Different recounts will give different results, and everyone can pull theirs out to bolster their case. Recounts don't account for the thousands of voters who were turned away at the polls on election day. This was nothing short of the theft of an election. Gore chose not to contest it, I don't know why, but it could have thrown the country into a near civil war.

Wildalaska

December 29, 2003, 07:12 PM

We have discovered a fourth group of Gore voters also barred from the polls.

Democratic voters are not denied their right to vote. All they have to do is move to Chicago and die..they can then vote for all eternity.

WildtheoutfitAlaska

UnknownSailor

December 29, 2003, 07:41 PM

While we're talking about "disappearing" and "disenfranchised" Gore voters, how about the number of Florida panhandle voters who stayed home after the Media talking heads declared Florida for Gore while the polls were still open? Nobody will ever know for sure. But keep this in mind: The panhandle region is a heavily Republican area.

One other thing about Gore's supposed "popular vote" win. Leaving aside that the popular vote decides absolutely nothing in Presidential races, the number of votes Gore was up is within the margin of error.

Jeff White

December 29, 2003, 07:47 PM

While we're talking about the stealing of elections, what about the Gore plan that kept the polls open in St Louis for a few extra hours? The planned lawsuit that was filed on election day. Didn't someone go to jail over that?

Jeff

Dilettante

December 29, 2003, 08:11 PM

I actually tried the old Washington Post on-line recount. It let you pick Bush or Gore depending on which votes you'd allow (hanging chads, dimpled chads, write-ins with the same name that was punched).
Sometimes Bush won, sometimes Gore won. There was no unique result.

Butterfly ballots have been around for years and have always been confusing. A lot of them are much worse than the one that was shown here. We need to bite the bullet and waste a lot more paper.

Arguably Gore blew it when he initially conceded on election night. If he'd never conceded, the disputed ballots could have been examined overnight before the court process started.

Quartus

December 29, 2003, 08:37 PM

Recounts don't account for the thousands of voters who were turned away at the polls on election day.

Oh, please. That charge was investigated by Democrats and found to be totally wihtout merit.

Of course, that part doesn't matter to the Gore followers. "Makie it big and tell it often."

Let's not talk about the systematic effort by the Gore campaign to avoid counting absentee ballots.

Don Gwinn

December 29, 2003, 08:49 PM

Jeff, I was just about to mention that. The polls were held open---by a Democrat judge--in heavily-Democrat St. Louis and closed on time everywhere else in Missouri. It was blatantly illegal and unethical, and for some reason, it hasn't gotten much attention, which is odd in a country where the national press is not at all biased in favor of the left or the Democratic party. :uhoh:

Not to mention, of course, the tricks in Chicago. I don't actually know what specific dirty tricks were played in Chicago, it's just assumed now. :D

Then there were the homeless people in Milwaukee who were picked up from shelters, given free cigarettes, and taken to the polls, where they were instructed to vote their consciences and remember that the Gore campaign was the one that passed out free cigarettes. :barf:

The stories about the voter databases in Florida give the reason for the extra felons as people with similar names. Unless most black people have the same names--both first and last--it would be impossible for such a method to be used to pick on minority voters. The whole thing is ridiculous. It's obviously unfortunate that anybody was mistakenly denied franchise, but it could have happened to you or me just as easily. I found it particularly funny that the names were about half minority and half white according to Palast. If, as he claims, the line between minority/Democrat and white/Republican is so simple and clear, that would seem to remove about an equal amount of votes from both sides.

I didn't vote for George Bush, either, but these wild stories. . . . .

mountainclmbr

December 29, 2003, 08:50 PM

I don't think anyone can honestly say Al Gore won the popular vote. Absentee ballots were only counted in very close races where the number of absentee ballots could affect the election outcome in the state. Two thirds of absentee ballots are statistically Republican votes (they seem to have the responsibility gene). If you take two thirds of the absentee ballots that were not counted and give them to Bush, he would win the popular election by a statistical margin. Saying that Gore won the popular election is only theory unless you don't want "every vote counted".

Just a thought...are any Democrats smart enough to see the game Gore was playing in trying to get recounts only in heavily Democrat counties. What about errors in counties that tended to vote Republican? Only a statewide recount would have been fair.

Another thought....if Democrats are so intellectual, why is it that most successful business people vote Republican and most wellfare recipients vote Democrat. Do I want my country run by the wellfare recipient choice?

I don't think that Democrat politicians are stupid. I think they are sociopathic egotists that want a totalitarian state run by themselves. Look at citizens murdered by their own socialist governments in the last 100 years. Same. Same Same. My personal doctrine is to never knowingly do business with hard core Democrats, they are either stupid or clever and evil.

I have been in communist countries and know what I speak about.

ravinraven

December 29, 2003, 10:24 PM

.............a copy of "Hit the ground a running." by the McKrells and forget all this nonsense!

I did. Now I'm happy.

Good bye,
rr

Sean Smith

December 30, 2003, 07:34 AM

You say:
So, Sean, your rebuttal is more name-calling. Impressive

Based on this:
I see, the (left-leaning) New York Times was part of a massive conspiracy to protect a (Republican's) supposed theft of the election? Do tell... terribly persuasive... no, really...

Where was the name-calling again? :rolleyes:

DaveB

December 30, 2003, 10:00 AM

why ignore the recounts ? you're just like the rest of the haters profiled in the editorial (remember, the original topic of this thread?) how come Gore couldn't win his home state ? nice pejorative about my education level, pal. typical of your ilk as described in this Boston Globe editorial.

You're right, and I'm sorry.

However, my point remains that Florida used a database - against the instructions of the people who compiled it - to remove voters, most of them likely to have voted Democratic. Thousands were stripped of their right to vote, and Bush's margain was a few hundred.

That is why Bush is the President, and not back home in Tejas waiting for his daddy's friends to buy him another business.

I see, the (left-leaning) New York Times was part of a massive conspiracy to protect a (Republican's) supposed theft of the election? Do tell... terribly persuasive... no, really...

Your name calling is evident in two ways:

The familiar references to the 'left-leaning media' as exemplified by the NYT, and

your eagerness to judge something on the basis of peripheral issues like 'who approved of something somebody else wrote', instead of the merits of the thing itself.

Did you read the article?

db

DaveB

December 30, 2003, 10:02 AM

hmmm Colorado... wasnt GunKid from Colorado ? see ya troll

That's good. Anyone who disagrees with you is a troll?

db

Art Eatman

December 30, 2003, 11:06 AM

There hasn't been an on-topic post since way too far back.

There are way too many personal attacks.

Enuf of this nonsense. My grammaw's ashamed of a bunch of folks who oughta know better.

:(, Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Hate speech of the left" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!